The UK government’s controversial decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organization is facing renewed scrutiny after a High Court ruling declared the move “disproportionate” and unlawful. Despite the legal setback, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has stood by her original decision, insisting that it was based on serious security advice and a thorough process involving multiple agencies. The ban, which remains in place pending appeal, has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum and prompted widespread civil disobedience, raising urgent questions about the boundaries of protest, public safety, and the rule of law in Britain.
Palestine Action, a protest group known for direct actions against UK-based defense companies, was proscribed on July 5, 2025, under then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. According to The Times, the group’s high-profile demonstrations included a raid in which a female police officer was attacked with a sledgehammer. Following the ban, being a member of, or even showing support for, Palestine Action became a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move, as reported by The Guardian, led to one of the largest campaigns of civil disobedience in recent UK history, including the biggest prison hunger strike since the Irish republican hunger strikes of 1981.
More than 2,700 people have been arrested for holding signs or displaying messages in support of Palestine Action since the ban took effect, according to protest group Defend Our Juries. The High Court’s ruling on February 13, 2026, delivered by Dame Victoria Sharp, found that while a "very small number" of Palestine Action’s 385 direct actions since 2020 amounted to terrorism, the overall proscription was disproportionate and unlawful. The court’s decision could have significant implications for the thousands of people arrested, with proceedings against many likely to be dropped.
Yvette Cooper, now serving as Foreign Secretary, has repeatedly defended her actions. Speaking on Sky News, she stated, “I followed the clear advice and recommendations going through a serious process the Home Office goes through … which was very clear about the recommendation about prescription of this group.” She emphasized that the decision was not made lightly, noting, “If you ignore advice that you are given about risks to public safety then you’re really not taking seriously the responsibilities of home secretary.”
Cooper further argued that the court itself had recognized the seriousness of Palestine Action’s activities. “The court has also concluded that this is not a normal protest group, that it has found that this group has committed acts of terrorism, that this group is not simply in line with democratic values, and has promoted violence,” she told Sky News. However, when pressed to reveal the specific advice she received, Cooper declined, citing the sensitive nature of security briefings, but reiterated she was presented with significant evidence about risks of violence and public safety.
The government’s position has not wavered in the face of the High Court’s rebuke. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has vowed to appeal the ruling, declaring her intent to “fight this judgment in the Court of Appeal.” The ban will remain in place while the appeal is underway, effectively keeping Palestine Action on the list of proscribed organizations and maintaining the criminalization of support for the group.
The response from law enforcement has been cautious. The Metropolitan Police announced that, in light of the ongoing legal uncertainty, officers would stop arresting people simply for showing support for Palestine Action, focusing instead on gathering evidence for possible future enforcement. A spokesperson explained, “Officers will continue to identify offences where support for Palestine Action is being expressed, but they will focus on gathering evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date, rather than making arrests at the time. This is the most proportionate approach we can take, acknowledging the decision reached by the court while recognizing that proceedings are not yet fully concluded.” Laurence Taylor, head of Counter Terrorism Policing, echoed this pragmatic approach, suggesting that enforcement could be suspended until the legal situation is clarified.
The government’s stance has drawn both sharp criticism and strong support. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel voiced outrage at the High Court’s decision, telling Sky News, “It is right that they feel the full force of our laws, including the proscription that has been put in place. They are on par with how terrorist organizations conduct themselves, and they plan their attacks. I think the public would be absolutely horrified to see that these individuals have been able to essentially get away with the type of activity that they have been able to thus far.” Patel’s comments reflect a segment of opinion that views Palestine Action’s tactics as crossing the line from protest to criminality and terrorism.
On the other hand, a group of 26 Labour MPs and peers has urged the government not to proceed with the appeal, arguing that the ban is an overreach with troubling implications for civil liberties and the right to protest. Lord Walney, an independent government advisor, expressed disappointment with the High Court’s verdict but insisted, “While Palestine Action has deployed violence less frequently than other proscribed groups, the criminal damage they systematically inflict clearly falls within the legal definition of terrorism.”
The controversy has exposed deep divisions within the Labour Party and the broader British political landscape. Some see the proscription as a necessary measure to protect public safety and prevent violence, while others warn that it sets a dangerous precedent, chilling legitimate protest and dissent. The scale of the backlash—including mass civil disobedience and hunger strikes—underscores the depth of public feeling on the issue.
For now, the legal and political battles show no sign of abating. The government’s appeal will determine whether the ban stands or is ultimately quashed. In the meantime, the fate of thousands arrested under the proscription hangs in the balance, and the debate over where protest ends and terrorism begins is far from settled.
As the dust settles on the High Court’s ruling, one thing is certain: the question of how to balance security, civil liberties, and the right to protest remains as contentious—and as crucial—as ever in Britain’s democracy.